Originally posted by Farlander30:If you bothered to do 30 seconds worth of research, you'd know that EA handled the port in its entirety, not Valve. Valve didn't want to do it, but EA went to them and convinced Valve to let them do it. Since all of the development was going to be in EA's lap, the testing and Quality Control undoubtedly was, as well.

So no, you don't get to base your boycott of Valve on the quality of the port. Your reasoning is nothing but melodrama, based on a falsehood.

Thanks for the kind accusations. I think your reasoning is flawed. Valve owns the intellectual property rights to the Orange Box - it's their code. They chose to let EA do a port and took no responsibility in keeping its quality in check. They chose to give EA the job and simply dropped the ball on overseeing its development. EA, of course, isn't blameless either. But it's silly to suggest Valve is without responsibility here.

Why people have to accuse you of fanboyism for simply expressing anger at a company's poor work, is beyond me.

People are pissed off that Valve is working hard and fast on another game for a beloved franchise, AND they're using the core team, AND the core team is going to keep heading in the direction that's worked so far.

I'd pay $50, but Valve needs to do one critical thing: not only commit to porting the original content, but rolling out the new binary (without new content) to original owners such that they'll be network-compatible. It's the only way not to fragment the install base.

Originally posted by MasterInsan0:Honestly, no one has stopped to think of the likely reason that this is happening. Valve probably figured out that constantly paying a team to pump out free updates to a previously-released game is losing them money. I would be willing to bet that TF2 received its first free updates as a bout of enthusiasm, but once those updates came out (with their breadth of content), Valve could no longer justify putting out an expansion for it due to the backlash they would receive.

So they continue to pump out free TF2 updates, since they had already locked themselves into that trap (and because TF2, like TFC before it, has the potential to foster a very powerful community, which will guarantee sales many years down the line). With L4D however, they were unable to make that same decision. Not only does L4D not have the same community staying power as TF2, but they need to release a full retail sequel instead of free updates so that they can continue to bring in some kind of profit. What they didn't expect, I would suppose, is the backlash they would receive due to the expectations TF2 had added to all of their future games.

You're right that no one has addressed the real motivation, but that isn't it. It's XBox.

They are reworking the graphics and AI and infrastructure for this release, and that's so it will look nice on the 360. Someone decided that since they were basically remaking the game, why not throw in all these ideas, and call it a new game. If they sell it on the PC too, everyone will be happy, right?

They certainly didn't expect this backlash. And I fully expect them to announce at some point that, no, they won't be discontinuing support for the first game. Whether they actually do or not remains to be seen.

But one thing is for sure: L4D2 will be a console port, just like every other PC/360 game. Read into that what you like.

Originally posted by GuitarAficionado:Also -- it says "VALVE" on the retail box.

*yawn*.. so, in other words, the fact that EA bought the rights to do it for the PS3 still isn't enough. You're going to continue to hate on Valve for being M$-lovers, apparently, and slighting Sony's Holy Son. Got it.

Because you bought one console and cling to it like an idiot - as opposed to doing any gaming on the PC or (*gasp*) getting a 360 as well - you feel you are entitled to a port of every single game that's popular on those other systems, whether the company wants to do it or not. QQ More, ya spoiled brat.

L4D2 is really the game they wanted to make. It's hard to begrudge them wanting to make their vision reality, esp when I got my $ worth out of the 1st one. The l4d community I play in is already getting quiet, I'm guessing mostly because there aren't any new maps/mods due to no SDK. Also, competitive play in l4d blows.

I for one do not consider you a fanboy. After seeing mgillespie's post I am not sure that there is another fan of any system as rabidly, or sexually involved with hardware like he is. I do sort of agree with your sentiment in that Valve simply should have refused to let EA port the damn thing. If they said they aren't developing for the PS3 then they need to keep their software off the system. That said, EA purchased the rights to port and publish the PS3 version of the game, they took full responsibility for the project and I am sure the terms of their arrangement cut them a big enough slice to make it worth there time, all the while I am sure the percentage going to Valve was large enough to make them happy, but small enough to provide no incentive to oversee the project. I am sure this worked out well for both parties, EA makes a bunch of money from simply porting a game, and Valve makes money from letting them do it. But it is no big secret that Valve does not give 2 rickety shits about the PS3 so if you honestly expected them to support the game you are a bit naive, EA was responsible for making it work on the PS3 if they failed it was on them. Valve added plenty of content after the fact, but it was EA responsibility to port that as well, if they failed to do so it is on them. At worst you can hate Valve for not giving a shit about the PS3, but given that they had that stance from day one you really should have known better than no buy the PS3 version.

Originally posted by Demondeluxe:At worst you can hate Valve for not giving a shit about the PS3, but given that they had that stance from day one you really should have known better than no buy the PS3 version.

Hence the baffling naivety in his position. Gabe Newell has been bashing the PS3 for a while now, and while he really was a jackass about the whole thing, it at least made Valve's position as clear as the fucking Bat Signal shining into a cloudy night sky.

Then there's the fact that the box has EA's fucking logo on it. Sure, Valve's is on the box too, but that's because it's their IP. If you see "EA" on the cover of The Orange Box, you should be able to do the "1 + 1 = 2" treatment and conclude that you should research the release a bit before taking the plunge.

Maybe he just hoped that since they agreed to allow a port that they were changing their tune a bit? That's not an unreasonable expectation. At the very least I agree with him in that they (Valve) should have taken some responsibility for the quality of the port. Even though it's EA that did the port Valve's rep gets dragged through the mud too as a result.

Valve can rectify this situation relatively easily, offer a discount, not $5 or $10 but $20-30 for individuals who bought L4D, lets face it, the general consensus is that this is really just an 'expansion'. Doing so will ameliorate feelings of being told to close your eyes and reach for the candy in the black bag, while valve gets behind you and greases up the shaft.

Ya but Thraxen one thing you have to realize is that Valve likely assumes that if you have a PC, an Xbox, and a PS3 you will buy either the PC or the Xbox version. I know I for one was not intending on buying anything but the PC version despite the fact that I have an Xbox, FPSs just tend to be better with a mouse and KB imo. Since they don't really give a damn about the PS3 they aren't really marketing to the PS3 only crowd, therefore if said crowd hates them for EA's piss poor port they really aren't obligated to care. I am certainly not commending Valve for the PS3 port, but I'd say it's about 90% EAs fault, 5% the fault of the person that bought it knowing that Valve does not like the PS3, and refuses to make games for it, and 5% valve simply for the apathy of not giving a damn about the shitty port.

These are the main reasons people are upset. My personal reasons are lack of promised content (one new game mode is all we got so far) and fragmentation of the community.

* Significant content for L4D1 was promised, and never delivered * Valve put little faith in L4D1 since they almost certainly started working on L4D2 right after release * The announced date is not nearly enough time to polish content or make significant gameplay changes * L4D2's release will result in a drop in quality and frequency for L4D1 content, even compared to before * The community has lost faith in Valve's former reputation for commitment to their games post-release

I'll wait for this to go on sale before I purchase it. Maybe down to like $20. The first game was so awesome when it first came out, but now it just kind of blends in with all the other FPS games out there. I spend more time with TF2 than anything.

Agreed. I, too, own a PS3 and a PC, and I don't care in the least if Valve ever releases anything new for the PS3. Quite frankly, I just can't even get to a point where I like 3D shooter type games on my PS3, at all!

Basically, I come from a long background of gaming on the PC, but also owning consoles to use for the things consoles are superior at doing. To me, that includes things like boxing or fighting games, sports games, racing sims, game show, trivia or board game sims where you have several people playing together in one room, and sometimes a 3D game originally designed for a console (like the Grand Theft Auto series).

I tried and tried to like games like Resistance or UT on my PS3, and I just couldn't get into it. My big plasma TV is almost a negative for them, for starters, because you can't really take in the entire thing without your eyes panning left and right constantly. But more importantly, I love the keyboard/mouse controls for that type of game! The PS3 controller just isn't a workable substitute for me.

quote:

Originally posted by Ganso:Why would they? They already make games for the platform with the largest installed base in the world, the PC.

Their games are even optimized on the PC to take advantage of last generations hardware (gotta love the resilience of that Source Engine), in two years more people will have a machine that will be able to run L4D2 then a PS3.

Okay-- Simple solution time. I'd probably buy L4D2 regardless, but how about this for an idea: The (insert color here) Box. Left 4 Dead Two, Half Life Episode 3, Portal 2 and Counterstrike Source. Maybe (and I can only hope here) a Blue Shift 2, focusing on what happened between to Barney between Half Life and Half Life 2?

Shoot, adding Episode 3 to it alone would make it worth 60 bucks and if you add in another round of Portal...oh man.

Ugh... let's not take this down the PC vs Console road. It's already bad enough that every other post is about Valve's attitude toward the PS3 thanks to the OT first post. Frankly, the quality of the the PS3 port of L4D is pretty much moot given that they obviously didn't plan to support ANY of the versions to any great degree.

Originally posted by Jackattak:game controller with seven buttons and a stick any day.

Not to nitpick, but the 360 controller has 2 sticks, 2 triggers, and 12 buttons... not counting the Start, Back, and Guide buttons. You can effectively have 16 buttons if you make use of the diagonals on the D-pad. Just saying...

In the case of multiplayer-heavy games they do. Releasing L4D2 this early will fracture the multiplayer community, significantly reducing the long-term viability of both games.

I'm one of the lucky ones. I never got L4D since I was busy with other stuff at the time, but these kind of announcements make me hesitate to buy the sequel now. I mean, if they release a new sequel every year, what's the hurry to buy? I'll just keep waiting until they release the UltraMega Pack in five years, and by that point, who knows if I'll still be interested at all.

On the other hand, if I know that any sequel is at least 2 years off, AND that they'll be releasing DLC to help improve the current game while maintaining the multiplayer community/platform I have a lot of incentive to buy now and participate.

Originally posted by Shudder:Because just like gay marriage ruins regular marriage for some logical reason I'm sure, sequels make old games break instantaneously.

Because being able to pick up and play a multiplayer game at any time requires a critical mass of players. This is especially true of games in which the preferred method of play is with friends rather than random players.

Fragmenting your player base is bad for multiplayer games. Unless L4D2 flops, a big chunk of the L4D community is going to move over to L4D2 and not look back. This could, indeed, "break" the L4D experience.

Note that I'm happy to hear about L4D2. It seems a bit early for a sequel and a bit pricey for what is essentially an expansion pack, but I got tons of enjoyment out of the original and am willing to plunk down $50 for 5 more campaigns and the improvements they're bringing to the table. Your analogy is rubbish, though.

Originally posted by GuitarAficionado:Also -- it says "VALVE" on the retail box.

*yawn*.. so, in other words, the fact that EA bought the rights to do it for the PS3 still isn't enough. You're going to continue to hate on Valve for being M$-lovers, apparently, and slighting Sony's Holy Son. Got it.

Because you bought one console and cling to it like an idiot - as opposed to doing any gaming on the PC or (*gasp*) getting a 360 as well - you feel you are entitled to a port of every single game that's popular on those other systems, whether the company wants to do it or not. QQ More, ya spoiled brat.

This comment was edited by Farlander30 on June 04, 2009 19:19

Does it make you feel superior to throw questionable language at someone you've never met and accuse them of things they've never said? Sorry, but I don't appreciate immature comments and accusations.

I'm not the fanboy in this -- you are the Valve fanboy. I'm a PS3 gamer now, but one of my favorite games was Half Life on the PC. I'm simply disappointed they had their hands in the release of a poor port of a title I loved.

I for one do not consider you a fanboy. After seeing mgillespie's post I am not sure that there is another fan of any system as rabidly, or sexually involved with hardware like he is. I do sort of agree with your sentiment in that Valve simply should have refused to let EA port the damn thing. If they said they aren't developing for the PS3 then they need to keep their software off the system. That said, EA purchased the rights to port and publish the PS3 version of the game, they took full responsibility for the project and I am sure the terms of their arrangement cut them a big enough slice to make it worth there time, all the while I am sure the percentage going to Valve was large enough to make them happy, but small enough to provide no incentive to oversee the project. I am sure this worked out well for both parties, EA makes a bunch of money from simply porting a game, and Valve makes money from letting them do it. But it is no big secret that Valve does not give 2 rickety shits about the PS3 so if you honestly expected them to support the game you are a bit naive, EA was responsible for making it work on the PS3 if they failed it was on them. Valve added plenty of content after the fact, but it was EA responsibility to port that as well, if they failed to do so it is on them. At worst you can hate Valve for not giving a shit about the PS3, but given that they had that stance from day one you really should have known better than no buy the PS3 version.

Thanks! I think you understood my sentiment exactly. I'm just disappointed a title I loved on the PC (Half Life) was so poorly ported to a platform I enjoy. Also, how did we get on this topic in the first place? I admit it's somewhat off-topic.

I hope everyone that bought the first L4D votes with their wallets on L4D2. I know I will. I talked several friends into getting it using the "Valve History" argument. While I may have been wrong to use that, they agreed it was valid.

I can't say I care how it goes either way, but let's let the majority decide. If the game comes out and enough of the fans are discontent with the early sequel then the L4D will be alive and kicking, while the L4D2 servers will be fairly empty. If the vast majority of the player base wants it this soon then you will find the L4D servers lacking in people and you will have to quit or suck it up and buy the new one. Give the quality of Valve's games, and the frequent sales they have I can see this potentially being worth the full price, or at least worth the sale price if you are patient enough to wait for it.

God, I am SO PISSED that they are releasing a sequel to an awesome game that I love. Fucking hell. Why couldn't they have waited four or five years? Now I am going to have play an awesome game SOONER rather than LATER. Do you know what this means? SOONER, people! I'll have to actually play it rather than wait for it and drool over screen shots! This is so unfair.

Originally posted by RadarScope1:God, I am SO PISSED that they are releasing a sequel to an awesome game that I love. Fucking hell. Why couldn't they have waited four or five years? Now I am going to have play an awesome game SOONER rather than LATER. Do you know what this means? SOONER, people! I'll have to actually play it rather than wait for it and drool over screen shots! This is so unfair.

Originally posted by RadarScope1:God, I am SO PISSED that they are releasing a sequel to a game that could have been awesome if they gave it the usual post-release love. Fucking hell. Why couldn't they have released four or five mods? Now I am going to have pay another $50 SOONER rather than LATER for the same ol shit. Do you know what this means? SOONER, people! I'll have to actually pay for it rather than get some real worth out of my previous purchase and drool over a real SDK! This is so unfair.